Antibiotics and Patients: what can and must do the ...

1

Antibiotics and Patients: what can and must do the Pharmacist ?

Jerome J. Schentag, Pharm DUniversity at Buffalo

[email protected]://www.pharmacy-ce.com

2

Antibiotic Classes

• Aminoglycosides• Beta Lactams• Fluoroquinolones• Macrolides• Glycopeptides• Streptogramins• Oxazolidinones

3

Antibiotic DevelopmentYear Antimicrobial 1930s Sulfonamides 1940s Penicillin G 1950s E-mycin, TCs, Chloramphenicol 1956-9 Vancomycin, Metronidazole 1961-4 Ampicillin, Methicillin, Nalidixic Acid 1968 Aminoglycosides, Cephalosporins 1970s Carbenicillin, 2nd Gen Cephs 1982-5 3rd Gen Cephs, Imipenem, BL/BLIs 1987 Ciprofloxacin and the FQs 1999 Streptogramins 2000 Oxazolidinones

4

Clinical Use of Antimicrobials

• Prophylaxis• Empirical Therapy• Known Pathogen Therapy• Switch Therapy/Streamlining• Emphasis on Clinically useful

information, from years of study

5

My Biases• One dose for all, must yield to one dose for each. This is

the emphasis on dosing to MICs and CCr• One drug for all, must yield to one drug for each. This is

the emphasis on selecting the most potent member of a therapeutic class for treatment of target pathogens.

• Cost of care is a much more important issue than cost of antibiotic, for reasons of efficacy, safety, and time of response vs drug dose and concentration.

• The most expensive regimen is the one that does not work the first time

6

The one that doesn’t work....

ABX A (Failure)More Tests and Procedures

Never less expensive...

A Second Course

More Expensive ABXCost of Other Care

INFECTION

ABX B (Success)$ (No additional cost,ultimately)

JA Paladino, 1997.

7

More of my Overall Biases...• Tobramycin over Gentamicin, for Safety reasons.• Ciprofloxacin among the FQs for situations that may

encounter Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Resistance issues)• 8-F or 8-Methoxy FQs for patients with Streptococcus

pneumoniae (resistance issues)• Less overall cephalosporin use, especially in settings of high

risk of MRSA and/or VREF• We need alternatives to Vancomycin, and we need them very

quickly...

8

BACTERIABACTERIA PATIENTPATIENT

AntibioticAntibiotic

Pharmaco-Dynamics

Resistance Pharmaco-kinetics

Toxicity

Infection

Host Defense

9

Killing a bacteria with an antibiotic

Toxic effect

minConcentration in non-target tissues

Dosage

therapeutic effects

MaxMICSerum

Concentration varying over time

Concentrationat the site of infection

adapted from W.A. Craig...

10

Model Antibiotics for Human PK/PD trials:

• Cefmenoxime• Cefepime• Vancomycin• Aztreonam• Synercid• Imipenem• Amikacin

• Ciprofloxacin• Grepafloxacin• Tobramycin• Piperacillin• Ceftazidime• Azithromycin• Linezolid

11

Antibiotic Monitoring

• Serum Concentration Target– assumes all pts with the same MIC, or at

least a low MIC covered by usual doses.• Antibiotic Effect Target

– Microbial Killing measured with gram stain or serial cultures

• Both Targets, the Strengths of Each

12

CCmaxmax (peak)(peak)

Time above MIC

Half lifeHalf life

Time Time

Ant

ibio

ticA

ntib

iotic

seru

m c

once

ntra

tion

seru

m c

once

ntra

tion

AUC

CCminmin (trough)(trough)

AUIC24=AUC24

MIC18

MIC

13

AUIC is a ratio, it does not have units1

• Mathematical derivation from integrated inverse ‘cidaltiters measured over time (Barriere et al, J AntimicrobChemother 16: 49-59, 1985)– The connection to measured ‘cidal activity in vivo led Forrest et

al to use SIT-1 in the 1993 paper discussing Ciprofloxacin (AAC 37: 1073-1081, 1993)

• AUIC is the Ratio of 24hr:– AUC: mcg x hr/ml (conc x time) to – MIC: mcg/ml x 18-24 hr incubation: mcg x hr/ml

• Therefore, use the 24hr mcg x hr/ml units for MIC as well as AUC, and units cancel out in AUIC calculations1. Mouton J., et al. Intl J Antimicrob Agents 19: 355-388, 2002

14

24

MIC=1.0

CSS = 4 mcg/mL

CFU Decline

Time, Hr

Broth (In Vitro)

AUC = 4x24 = 9624 hr AUIC = 96 1=96:

24

MIC=1.0

AUC = 96

CFU Decline

Time, Hr

Blood (In Vivo)

CSS = AUC 24 HR = 4.024 hr AUIC = 96 1=96

::

Hyatt et al, Clinical Pharmacokinetics28: 143-160, 1995

15

Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Correlates of Cure for Different Classes of Antibiotics

Correlates of Successful Outcome

Drug ClassAminoglycosidesß-lactamsQuinolonesGlycopeptides

HumansCmax:MIC, AUICT>MIC, AUIC

Cmax:MIC, AUC:MIC, AUICMIC<1.0, T>MIC,

AUIC

In-VitroCmax:MICT>MIC

Cmax:MICT>MIC

AnimalsAUC:MIC

T>MICAUC:MICT>MIC,

AUC/MIC

16

Antibiotics for Study in Human LRTI

• Concentration Dependent Actions– Fluoroquinolones– Aminoglycosides– Carbapenems

• Concentration Independent Actions– Beta Lactams– Vancomycin– Macrolides– Linezolid

17

AUIC breakpoints in Mice and Man

AUIC Discussion

25-40 PD50 in animals; Some evidence for activity in mild infections inoutpatients with normal host defenses; peak:MIC ~ 3:1

125 Separates cure and failure in compromised patients; At 125,the AUC is 80% above MIC, and the peak:MIC ratio ~5:1;The threshold for avoiding resistance is an AUIC of 100

250 Maximal killing rate for concentration dependent ABX;peak:MIC ~ 10:1

18

Nosocomial Pneumonia, a Human Model for Studies of antibiotic PK/PD

• Precedent from Animal Models• Infection site concentration is equal to

the blood concentration, limiting the confusion over tissue penetration.

• low cure rate, rapid learning curve.• Easy access to tracheal organisms,

allowing time-killing studies in vivo

19

Advantages of Antibiotics

• You can isolate and study the bacterial “receptor” directly for conc/effect relationships

• Because testing of the individual sensitivity is easy, the correlation of in vitro Pharmacokinetics with in vivo Pharmacodynamics becomes feasible

• Gram stains, done serially, can tell you if you are eradicating the organism, or at least that you are reducing their numbers....

20

21

BACTERICIDAL ACTIVITY• Concentration-dependent killing

– the higher the drug concentration, the greater the rate and extent of activity

– aminoglycosides, quinolones, metronidazole• Minimal concentration-dependent killing

– saturation of killing rate occurs at low multiples of the MIC - usually 4-5X the MIC

– extent of killing dependent on time of exposure– β-lactams, vancomycin, clindamycin and macrolides

22

PHARMACOLOGY OF ANTIBIOTICS

• PHARMACOKINETICS– serum concentration profile– penetration to site of infection

• PHARMACODYNAMICS– relationship between serum concentration and the

pharmacological and toxicological effects• Both determine the time course of activity and the

clinical outcome of the patient

23

Applying AUICs to Empiric Therapy

• Measure or Calculate PK parameters (AUC)• Measure or default MICs

– Defaults in settings of breakpoints– Exact Values when available, and for streamlining

• Measure Antibiotic Endpoint as Bacterial Killing– Gram Stain pre vs post (i.e., Serial)

• The only true 10 minute determination of the correct dose– Culture

• Use culture positivity as an index of Low AUIC• Use early negative cultures to shorten duration of therapy

24

Case 03

• A 47 year old female with MS, was admitted from a nursing home in Respiratory distress with a temp of 104 oF; Intubated in ER. Her CXR was positive for a LLL infiltrate.

• Urine was packed with WBCs and bacteria.• Blood cultures have gram negative rods x2• Ht was 5’6”, weight 135 lbs, Cr was 1.0 mg/dl• She had multiple courses of TMP/SMX in the nursing

home, for frequent UTIs over 2 years.• What is the most likely pathogen in this case, and

what should be chosen for therapy?

The A.U.I.C. Program for Antimicrobial Dosing

ANTIBIOTIC UTILIZATION INFORMATION AND CONSULTATION ANTIBIOTIC UTILIZATION INFORMATION AND CONSULTATIONANTIBIOTIC UTILIZATION INFORMATION AND CONSULTATIONANTIBIOTIC UTILIZATION INFORMATION AND CONSULTATIONANTIBIOTIC UTILIZATION INFORMATION AND CONSULTATIONANTIBIOTIC UTILIZATION INFORMATION AND CONSULTATIONANTIBIOTIC UTILIZATION INFORMATION AND CONSULTATION

Version 1.0.0a

Copyright 1987–93, 1997–9 by The Clinical Pharmacokinetics Lab, Millard Fillmore Hospital, Buffalo, NY 14209, USA

Developed by: Martin Adelman, PhD and Jerome J Schentag, PharmD

26

Measures of Antimicrobial Action

• On the patient– Clinical Cure (contains no time sensitive information)– Rate of improvement in signs and symptoms– Daily symptom scoring and quantitative indices of

antimicrobial effects• Clinical Cure endpoint is not sensitive to:

– Rate of improvement over time– combination antibiotic effects vs single agents

27

Time to Eradication vs AUICGoss T et al. Ann Pharmacother 28: 863-868, 1994

% C

ultu

re p

ositi

ve%

Cul

ture

pos

itive

Cefmenoxime AUIC > 250Cefmenoxime AUIC > 250Ciprofloxacin AUIC > 250Ciprofloxacin AUIC > 250

6060

4040

2020

Differentiation of concentration and time dependent killing requires AUIC matching

100100

8080

00 2 4 6 2 4 6 88 10 12 1410 12 14

Days of treatmentDays of treatment

00

28

Trial Outcomes

• At similar AUIC, the antibiotic regimens tested performed similarly at EOT

• Most patients with AUICs above 125 were cured by the regimen that produced these values

• Daily scoring of these patients, to examine differences in speed of response vs antibiotic concentration in relation to MIC

Rs = 0.88

100 1000

Linezolid AUIC (SIT-1x24hr)

0

20

40

Line

zolid

60

80

100

%T>

MIC

Rayner et al. Clinical Pharmacokinetics 42: 1411-1423, 2003

30

Challenges in Antibiotic Monitoring

• AUIC values provide a precise means of expressing PK/PD changes in Exposure.

• Bacterial Eradication can be precisely monitored by serial cultures.

• We need an equally precise means of expressing and quantitating changes in the patients’ condition– This is the weak link in monitoring antibiotic therapy

at the moment.

31

Why standardize Antibiotic Activity Indices ?

• Endpoints for clinical trials

• Hypothesis testing in development of new antibiotics

• Development of drug monitoring strategies

• Facilitates computerization and automation, so it becomes the core of a dosing strategy to maximize efficacy and minimize resistance

32

Antibiotic Combinations

• Antibiotics are nearly always given in combination in the treatment of hospitalized patients

• Combinations broaden empiric spectrum and are felt to lower resistance. Some cases of Synergy are observed, although the normal effect appears to be additivity.

• Monotherapy is typical in outpatients, but the recent development of community resistance in S. pneumoniae, E. coli, and S. aureus suggests this is about to change

• A rational combination method is urgently needed both for the hospital and the community

33

Antibiotic CombinationsCompound AUC24

MIC P.aerug AUC/MIC

Ciprofloxacin 64 1.0 64

Pip-Tazo 1544 8.0 193

Total(Cipro+Pip-Tazo) 257

34

Synergy or Additivity between FQ and β-Ls?

• Additive in vitro, in most cases– in spite of different intra-cellular targets– in spite of different mechanisms of action

• First assessment is the action of each antibiotic alone vs the specific pathogen– Killing should appear conc dependent when most of the total

activity comes from the FQ– Killing should appear conc Independent when most of the

activity comes from the β-L

35

Ciprofloxacin with Pip/Tazo

• Depends on the absolute sensitivity of the organism to each antibiotic alone

• Best case is highly sensitive to ciprofloxacin, since that increases the speed of bacterial killing in vivo....

36

8C

once

ntra

tion

(µg/

ml) 40

30

20

10

016

Time (hrs)

0 24Cip MIC = 0.25 µg/ml

Pip AUIC = 40

Pip MIC = 32 µg/ml

Cip AUIC = 200

AUIC Total = 240DTE = 1 (Additive)DTE = 6 (Antagonism)

Pseudomonasaeruginosa, #1

Time (hrs)8

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/m

l) 40

30

20

10

0160 24

Pip MIC = 4 µg/ml

Pip AUIC = 400

Cip AUIC = 40

AUIC Total = 440DTE = 6 (Additive)DTE = 2 (Synergy)

Cip MIC = 1 µg/ml

Pseudomonasaeruginosa, #2

37

Ciprofloxacin plus PiperacillinSynergy or Additivity?

OrganismP.aeruginosaP.aeruginosaE.cloacaeS.aureus

Predicted

DTE, Cip>32

115

MICCipro

1.00.25

0.1250.4

Predicted

DTE, Pip

776

>32

DTE(Actual)

6214

MICPip4.0

32.01.0

>256

Days to Eradication (DTE)

38

Ciprofloxacin with Pip-Tazo

• Piperacillin at maximal rate of bacterial killing will sterilize cultures in 4-6 days

• Ciprofloxacin at maximal rate of killing will sterilize cultures in 1 day

• Find pathogens where the predicted rate of sterilization is in excess of 7 days for either antibiotic alone, then optimize the other.

39

Ciprofloxacin with Pip-Tazo

• Depends on the absolute sensitivity of the organism to each antibiotic alone

• Best case is highly sensitive to ciprofloxacin, since that increases the speed of bacterial killing in vivo

• Must therefore optimize the dose of ciprofloxacin first, and then optimize the dose of piperacillin. Each of these can be done as AUICs for the pathogen in question

40

Antibiotic Combination effect in patient care

• Additivity is the usual situation in vivo

• AUIC values are additive• In vivo endpoint is more rapid

bacterial killing than expected by additive AUIC values alone.

41

Killing Curves Detect SynergyAs More Rapid Sterilization

1

4

3

5

7

6

2

Time

O

A+B

E

A

CFU

In Vitro100

30

Time

O

A+B

E

A

% C

ultu

re P

ositi

ve

In Vivo

42

Antibiotic Synergy

• Partly a matter of perspective• From the viewpoint of a β-lactam, synergy is

always possible, since they kill rather slowly on their own.

• Best partner antibiotic has concentration dependent killing– quinolones– aminoglycosides

43

Antibiotic Additions or Synergies

• Nosocomial Pneumonia is the best model for detecting the effects of synergy, as daily cultures can easily be performed.

• Once a bacteria is isolated, trach aspirate and BAL give the same information on the eradication of the pathogen, even though the original inoculum may be different

• Multiple organisms can be followed simultaneously

44

Impact of two drug regimens as calculated by A.U.I.C.

• AUIC24 values for each drug can be added to yield a total AUIC24 for the regimen

• True synergy would always speed organism eradication beyond the day predicted by the AUIC24 from additivity

• True synergy by this definition appears to be uncommon. Most interactions where the bacterial killing is measured are suggesting additive interaction

45

Principles of Combination Therapy

• Potentially synergistic combinations:– Tobramycin-Ceftazidime– Ciprofloxacin-Piperacillin

• Synergy can only be visualized when the MIC to both components is high, and therefore, the killing of the pathogen by either is rather slow

46

Strengths of these models

• Clinical data on bacterial killing rate are supportive of the findings in animal models

• Supportive of in vitro mechanisms and findings• Relevent to extracellular and probably also

intracellular pathogens• Relatively easy to use, since AUIC has a common

target for most clinical settings

47

CONCLUSIONS

• Utilizing pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic principles to optimize antibiotic dosing regimens will improve clinical outcomes and potentially decrease the development of resistance.

• Subsequent Presentations will demonstrate this premise for each of the major classes of antibiotics.

• AUIC plays a unique role in the implementation of antimicrobial pharmacodynamics at the bedside